Thanks for the feedback Maura! It was intended to allow content authors to check the
values of settings. I will look into it a bit more though since it has been a couple of
years since I last looked at this test :). In doing so, I will try to generate some
sample content. As a side note, it looks like it is implemented in openscap.
From: scap-security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org [mailto:scap-
security-guide-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org] On Behalf Of Shawn Wells
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rewrote various GConf checks to standardize on
xmlfilecontent tests and ensured they were actually checking the correct
location (gconf.xml.mandatory, not gconf.xml.defaults).
On 12/16/13, 12:51 PM, Maura Dailey wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 12:46 PM, Haynes, Dan wrote:
>> For the GConf checks, it looks like the content first used the
>> ind-def:textfilecontent54_test and was just updated to use the
>> ind-def:xmlfilecontent_test which seems like a good improvement to me.
>> Just curious, has anyone considered using the unix-def:gconf_test
>> If so, are there any problems with the gconf_test that make using the
>> ind-def:xmlfilecontent_test more desirable? This seems to be a good
>> opportunity for me to get some feedback on the usability of the
>> unix-def:gconf_test from an OVAL content authoring perspective :).
> I saw the test, but it doesn't seem clear how to specify where to
> check for settings or if it's checking settings for a particular user.
> xmlfilecontent_test is much more precise, because it allows you to
> specify the exact file to check.
Love the idea though. Dan, is there sample code (or would you be willing
to generate some)?
scap-security-guide mailing list